wk.6.Discussion
LEADERSHIP SKILLS AND PLANNING
According to the American Nurses Association, a nurse leader is “a nurse interested in excelling in a career path, a leader within a healthcare organization who represents the interests of the nursing profession, a seasoned nurse or healthcare administrator interested in refining skills to differentiate them from the competition or to advance to the next level of leadership.”
Leadership can take many forms. Perhaps leadership takes the form of scheduling charge nurses for the month; perhaps leadership is providing guidelines for protocols at your organization, and perhaps leadership is simply determining the best approach to implement change.
For this Discussion, you will explore the connection between project management strategies and leadership styles. Reflect on the role of leadership in project planning and implementation and consider how your leadership style and skill will impact your plan.
Reference: American Nurses Association. (n.d.).
Leadership and excellence.
to an external site.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
WEEKLY RESOURCES
LEARNING RESOURCES
Required Readings
· Hickey, J. V., & Giardino, E. R. (Eds.). (2021).
Evaluation of quality in health care for DNPs (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing.
· Chapter 8, “Planning a Program or Project Evaluation” (pp. 189–214)
· Chapter 13, “Evaluation of Populations and Population Health” (pp. 329–350)
· Sipes, C. (2024).
Project management for the advanced practice nurse (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing Company.
· Chapter 3, “Design/Initiation: Project Management—Phase I” (pp. 55–84)
· Chapter 4, “Planning: Project Management—Phase 2” (pp. 85–130)
· White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terhaar, M. F. (Eds.). (2021).
Translation of evidence into nursing and healthcare (3rd ed.). Springer Publishing Company.
· Chapter 9, “Project Management for Translation” (pp. 199–228)
· Aycock, D. M., Clark, P. C., Thomas-Seaton, L., Lee, S.-Y., & Moloney, M. (2017).
Simple tools to facilitate project management of a nursing research projectLinks to an external site.
.
Western Journal of Nursing Research,
39(3), 430–443.
· Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015).
Develop SMART objectives—evaluate a CoPLinks to an external site.
.
TO PREPARE
· Review the Learning Resources covering leadership skills and project planning.
· Explore project management techniques and strategies to be used for your problem.
· Consider the connection between project management strategies and leadership styles.
Post a description of your identified design approach for your practice problem. Identify the focus and setting of your problem, as well as the leadership styles most appropriate for the proposed practice change. Identify potential facilitators and barriers to making a proposed practice change. Be specific. How might your leadership style and skills match with the identified facilitators and barriers? Gather evidence to justify your selection and consider whether the approach addresses the practice gap. In your post, be sure to cite the specific evidence found.
Assignment Rubric Details
Close
Rubric
NURS_8502_Week7-8_Discussion_Rubric
NURS_8502_Week7-8_Discussion_Rubric |
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) |
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent • Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts. |
19 to >15.0 pts
Good • Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts. |
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair • Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part. |
12 to >0 pts
Poor • Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty. |
| 20 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) |
30 to >29.0 pts
Excellent Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. |
29 to >23.0 pts
Good Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. |
23 to >18.0 pts
Fair Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. |
18 to >0 pts
Poor Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. |
| 30 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) |
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
19 to >15.0 pts
Good Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty. |
12 to >0 pts
Poor Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty. |
| 20 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) |
20 to >19.0 pts
Excellent Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
19 to >15.0 pts
Good Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty. |
15 to >12.0 pts
Fair Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty. |
12 to >0 pts
Poor Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty. |
| 20 pts |
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) |
10 to >9.0 pts
Excellent Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
9 to >8.0 pts
Good Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
8 to >6.0 pts
Fair Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
6 to >0 pts
Poor Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. |
| 10 pts |
Total Points: 100 |
image1.jpeg
